No. Without a shadow of a doubt the current policy and legislative framework is not only inadequate but part of the problem. It assumes that the range state (i.e. African country) is un-corrupt, efficient and that conservation services are actually functional. In other words, your policy structures are built on, and dependent upon, dysfunctional range state conservation structures that are mostly dysfunctional. In South Africa, some of the provincial conservation departments have collapsed, and even elementary record keeping is beyond their capacity. Others are semi-functional. To aggravate the problem, many former conservation officials from apartheid-era days now make a good living as “permit consultants” i.e. as conservation hit-men servicing the permit needs of the hunting industry. Want a permit to import twelve captive-bred tigers from a breeding centre in Botswana to be hunted in S.A. in contravention of CITES regulations? No problem; the ‘permit consultant’ will fill in the form for the hunting operator, with the necessary false information e.g. that this is a ‘transfer between zoos’ and the permits drop from the trees. Nobody follows up; nobody surpervises; nobody cares. Any conservation official who asks too many questions may find himself suspended. So your EU Policies and Legislation have to be much stronger, and independent. The EU needs to set up it's own parallel system of permits which does not rely upon source-state bureaucracies. Persons wanting to import a trophy in to the EU must at the very least be required to obtain an import permit which will only be granted once all of the details of the proposed import have been thoroughly scrutinised and investigated by EU officials. In addition your policies and data sharing need to be far more fluid in terms of enabling cross border sharing of information and interventions in order to have a hope of matching the fluid and swift techniques and movements of those involved in the illegal wildlife trade. By way of example, we know that 3 tons of lion bones were shipped from South Africa to Asia only a matter of months ago, probably to the Xaysavang import and export company in Lao PDR, from where they will be passed on throughout the region and passed off as Tiger within products such as Tiger bone ‘cake’. See for example: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/29/of-tiger-and-lion-bones-and-the-legalizing-of-the-rhino-horn-trade/ It will be about 2 years before that transaction shows on the CITES trade database and although she did previously the South African Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs is now giving excuses rather than further details of the names of the relevant exporters and importers. The European Commission proudly announces that the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations go further than CITES but they don’t really. Not significantly. For the most part they simply seem to reflect CITES which is crippled by inefficiency and inaction, an outdated international legal convention that the illegal wildlife traders have proved time and time again they can outwit without any problem whatsoever. The EU Wildlife Trade Regulations do not even need to reflect CITES as the 28 EU Member States are signatories and bound by CITES in any event. There is little or nothing to stop the EU completely re-drafting its Wildlife Trade Regulations into a bespoke, coherent, and effective body of binding European Law that really could show the world and those involved in the illegal wildlife trade that the EU is not a place where they want to be doing business at all.

Should the EU enhance its approach to wildlife trafficking by developing a new EU Action Plan, as called for by the European Parliament?

Yes. A new action plan, indeed a whole new paradigm in conservation, is urgently required as set out above - while we still have some wildlife left to save.

How could the EU increase political commitment at all levels against wildlife trafficking? What diplomatic tools would be best suited to ensure coherence between different international initiatives?

There is only one tool that all source states recognise and respect - Money. Make all financial aid to source states dependent upon proof that wildlife and wilderness areas are being rigidly and adequately protected. Because of the prevalence of corruption in the source states, it will be necessary to set up teams of EU Inspectors stationed full time in the source states. These teams would be tasked with closely supervising the conduct of local conservation departments. All financial aid should be held back until the EU inspectors have signed off on a certificate of adequate compliance of wildlife preservation. The feedback from undercover investigators working on the ground on these issues, often at great danger to their lives, is that those involved in the trade are laughing in the face of increased political commitment and all of the numerous conferences and Memoranda of Understanding. Interestingly however there is evidence that media exposure of e.g. demand generating establishments in South East Asia can lead to them having to pay significantly more in bribes in order to stay in business. Maybe that could be taken forwards…

What tools at international level should the EU focus on to enhance enforcement against wildlife trafficking and strengthen governance?

The EU will also need to station full time inspectors in demand states such as Asian countries. Corruption being just a prevalence there, a strong international presence on the ground is necessary to counter smuggling and wildlife trade. It is not fair to expect wildlife trade investigators like Karl Amman to travel around the demand states doing undercover work and filming the blatant disregard for CITES regulations that take place openly there, only to find that there is no political will in CITES or elsewhere to take any action against the traffickers. The EU could usefully take a strong stance at CITES by e.g. making any EU donations / funding for CITES, MIKE, ICCWC etc. dependent upon substantive results. If this is being done already any Key Performance Indicators attached to such funding are clearly not strong enough to have the desired effect.

What tools are most suitable for EU action to address international and EU demand for illegal wildlife products? What role could civil society and the private sector play in this regard?

To tackle demand for wildlife products, what is needed is a massive education programme, supported with professional advertising campaigns. Environmental education in schools is essential, especially where there is a culture of callous indifference to wildlife issues in the home. Here is where civil society and NGO’s can also play a substantial role; such as education via presentations to relevant civil society groups. The media also have are important role to play, especially TV. But as the internet takes over from print media, setting up wildlife conservation groups to spread the word via social media becomes more and more effective. EU grant funding could be made available to EU Member State national environmental crime bureaus / desks and NGOs who have been thoroughly, independently audited (as to their trustworthiness and efficacy) for the sole purpose of widespread, high profile, demand reduction campaigns. This funding could, again, be made conditional on KPIs / results tested by e.g. public opinion polls before and after the demand reduction campaigns.

How can the EU best add value to address the peace and security implications of wildlife trafficking?

The mention (at Section 2.3 of the Commission’s Communication of 7 February 2014) of a potential, addition protocol to the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime is sound and the EU could usefully lobby for that in its efforts to address the peace and security threats posed by illegal wildlife trafficking. This would presumably be akin to the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. If so, with regard to the fast moving and fluid nature of the global illegal wildlife trade, it would need to be drafted innovatively and robustly to enable signatories’ law enforcement officials (domestically and collaboratively on the international stage) to get on even terms with the with those involved in the illegal wildlife trade.7. How could the EU cooperation instruments better support the reinforcement of the capacities of developing countries for wildlife conservation and action against wildlife trafficking? That would depend on the developing countries in question and how they are ranked on the international scale that measures prevalent corruption within States. Cooperation instruments that are simply words on paper will mean nothing to the rural farmer who makes a year’s income from a wild tiger kill or the kingpin at the top of the pyramid with ‘friends in high places’. Cooperation instruments with developing countries should incentivise them with performance related funding and the performance in question being independently and innovatively audited for veracity. This means more than simply having highly paid bureacrats signing off on performance further to e.g. checks on dates notified well in advance. Undercover spot checks could be utilised to monitor availability of illegal wildlife products in market places for example.

What measures could be taken to improve data on wildlife crime in the EU so as to ensure that policy-making can be more effectively targeted?

Substanive funding and empowering of national environmental crime bureaus / desks in each of the EU member States who are mandated to share the information they obtain (from e.g. domestic and international law enforcement officials, NGOs and undercover investigators) amongst themselves and with the central organs of the EU in a uniform manner and on a regular basis. In addition, as mentioned above, EU grant funding could usefully be made available to trustworthy and effective NGOs who make real inroads into investigating the illegal wildlife trade within the EU and globally and passing on the results of their investigations to e.g. national crime desks, EU central organs, INTERPOL and so on. At the risk of sounding biased, without prompting or collusion / coordination, the UK based Environmental Investigation Agency NGO stands out as a model of an NGO that gets real substantive and useful work done on these issues on a limited budget.

What measures could be taken to strengthen enforcement against wildlife trafficking by environmental authorities, police, customs and prosecution services in the Member States and to reinforce cooperation between those authorities? How could awareness of the judiciary be raised?

From the Commission’s Communication document of 7 February 2014 what comes across is that there are structues in place for these officials to coordinate their methods but this is not being done to the extent that it could be. Again, maybe the EU could consider incentivising the initiatives and structures that have been put in place to coordinate these officials with extra performance related funding.

How could existing tools against organised crime at EU and Member States level be better used to address wildlife trafficking? What additional measures should be envisaged, e.g. regarding sanctions? What contribution could Europol and Eurojust make in that regard?

These questions have largely be answered herein already. Existing tools either need substantively amended, reinforced, incentivised and empowered, to get on terms with the fluid and fast moving individuals and networks involved in the global illegal wildlife trade, or they need to be abandoned and replaced with innovative and robust laws and tools that will be up to the job. The evidence is all there. The equivalent of at least 1,300 entire captive bred lion skeletons were exported from South Africa to Asia from 2008 to 2012. The bones of those lions were passed off as Tiger in products such as Tiger bone ‘cake’, thereby providing a huge injection of supply to fuel and sustain demand for tiger products, in turn maintaining the dire dangers facing the last 3,000 Tigers. That trade was all perfectly legal under CITES and not once over the period 2008 to 2012 has there even been a hint of a suggestion that it could constitute ‘significant trade’. Your EU Wildlife Trade Regulations are based on an outdated international legal convention that allows that situation to go on legally and unchecked. Your Member States are all signatories and bound by CITES in any event. If the EU wants to take a meaningful and substantive approach against wildlife trafficking you need to seriously consider an entirely new, bespoke, innovative and effective legal regime. A regime that enables law enforcement officals to get on terms with illegal wildlife traffickers operating within and across the EU in a timely and effective manner with accompanying, suitably deterring criminal punishments for those found guilty of illegal wildlife trafficking.

This registered public benefit organization has been approved for purposes of section 18A of the income tax act, and donations will therefore be tax deductible in the hands of the donors.